In Defense of Christian Bale

I thought this was a very odd criticism from David Denby:

It’s a workable dramatic conflict, but only half the team can act it. Christian Bale has been effective in some films, but he’s a placid Bruce Wayne, a swank gent in Armani suits, with every hair in place. He’s more urgent as Batman, but he delivers all his lines in a hoarse voice, with an unvarying inflection.

Bale's performance in the film isn't as interesting as Heath Ledger's or Aaron Eckhardt's but he's "a placid Bruce Wayne" because Bruce Wayne is a placid guy, a character invented to disguise the identity of Batman. Similarly, Batman delivers all his lines in a hoarse voice, with an unvarying inflection, because he's trying to make his voice unrecognizable as Bruce Wayne's voice. Yes, it's weird to listen to. But why shouldn't it be weird to listen to a vigilante dressed in bat armor? The trouble with some of Batman's conversations is that, especially near the end of the film, he's speaking badly written dialogue -- nobody does ponderous exposition well.

The other thing I wanted to say was that while the praise Ledger has gotten is very much deserved, I'd appreciate some more acknowledgment that one reason he's able to do such an extraordinary job is that the Joker is one of the great pop characters. He, Batman, and Two Face, with the various different takes on them presented over the years, are great American myths, which is why their stories can be told and re-told over and over again in different ways to great effect. The Nolan/Ledger version of the Joker seems based on the Joker of The Killing Joke and A Death in the Family rather than springing ex nihilo from the filmmakers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's worth acknowledging.

Comments

Agreed. Classifying Bale as "placid" and "swank" doesn't match the performance I saw. Recall also, there's Bruce Wayne in private with Lucius Fox & Alfred and Wayne in public. The public Wayne is a playboy because he's supposed to appear that way.

Very clearly, the film's characterizations are based upon three graphic novels: The Long Halloween, The Killing Joke and Batman: Year One. In an interview, I heard screenwriter Jonathan Nolan say as much. It's important to note that there have been many interpretations of these characters over the last 70 years by many writers. The Nolans and David Goyer should at least be given credit for choosing which are the versions they wish to use and combine in the way they did.

That said, in some ways the version of the Joker in The Dark Knight is new in many ways from his previous comic book versions. There's a line in The Killing Joke about the Joker wishing his past to be multiple choice that is expanded upon in the film in a way that makes him more frightening. And Ledger's performance grounds the Joker in a way that's clearly necessary in moving from the illustrated page to the screen.

Posted by The Pop View | July 21, 2008 8:46 AM

I haven't seen this one yet, but one of my favorite things about the last movie was the way Bale doesn't play Batman--he plays Bruce Wayne playing Batman. It's a crucial distinction that I don't think any of the other actors in the series have gotten. He exaggerates the growl because Wayne is specifically putting on a scary persona.

Not only that, but there's another level to the performance; Bruce Wayne playing "Bruce Wayne". Like Don Diego de la Vega before him, the public persona is different from the private one. I've thought Bale was underrated as an actor for a long time, and I don't think he gets proper credit for the work he's doing in these movies.

Posted by EarBucket | July 21, 2008 8:49 AM

Sorry, I can't look at the guy without being reminded of David Byrne. Haven't seen the new one yet, but all through Batman Returns, I kept expecting him to intone in a rough whisper, "This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around."

Posted by James Gary | July 21, 2008 8:56 AM

Similarly, Batman delivers all his lines in a hoarse voice, with an unvarying inflection, because he's trying to make his voice unrecognizable as Bruce Wayne's voice

This seems backwards to me. Of course, there have been many different takes on this but I always thought Kevin Conroy, who did the voice for Bruce Timm's animated series version of Batman, really nailed it. Batman has the naturally harsh and uninflected voice. Its deep and always full of anger, pain and general annoyance. Its Bruce Wayne that has the made up, high pitched, light hearted voice. When Bruce is around people who know his secret, like Superman or Robin, even when he isn't in the Bat costume, he sounds like Batman.

I don't have any serious criticism for Bale's work but I was mildly annoyed by the whole thing with the voice. I thought it was the wrong choice.

Posted by brent | July 21, 2008 9:04 AM

"The other thing I wanted to say was that while the praise Ledger has gotten is very much deserved, I'd appreciate some more acknowledgment that one reason he's able to do such an extraordinary job is that..."

...he's dead.

Dying young is usually a wise career move.

-----

Bale's performance is actually an homage to his Patrick Bateman role.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 9:11 AM

i think the reason Ledger is getting such praise--deservedly so--is that most big-time hollywood leading men, even when they're playing a villain--always hold something back, not wanting to appear TOO nasty, TOO slimy, otherwise it might hurt their career (what was the difference between Terminator 1 and T2? Arnold became a big star, so he could no longer be a merciless killing machine).

even Jack Nicholson played his Joker as--crazy and murderous, sure, but sort of charming in a way, and still recognizably Jack Nicholson-ish.

but i think Ledger just went for broke, looking stinky and creepy and odd, betraying none of his comforting leading man-ness. he went all out, and i think its a brilliant performance.

Posted by rob! | July 21, 2008 9:12 AM

Hey Petey,

You forgot "trust fund scumbag". And I can't wait for the "CAP is a front for GM" rant that you're working on.

Posted by DMonteith | July 21, 2008 9:25 AM

Surprised to actually agree with Petey about something, but I do think there's something of a tip of the hat to Patrick Bateman in the "Bruce Wayne" character.

Posted by EarBucket | July 21, 2008 9:27 AM

Saw the movie, and I just sort of assumed until reading reviews afterwards that Batman in costume was using some sort of a voice distorter.

Posted by John Bragg | July 21, 2008 9:34 AM

Surprised to actually agree with Petey about something, but I do think there's something of a tip of the hat to Patrick Bateman in the "Bruce Wayne" character.

Posted by EarBucket | July 21, 2008 9:34 AM

Who's Two Face?

Posted by Aleks | July 21, 2008 9:39 AM

How to do Batman's voice has always been a problem since the Tim Burton reinvention. Val Kilmer did the same kind of thing.

I was not thrilled with Bale's Batman voice throughout The Dark Knight, but that's probably one of the very few nits I have to pick about the film. I hadn't read any of the discussion about the source material, but I clearly saw the elements of The Killing Joke and The Long Halloween mentioned previously. The fact that the elements were there without an overt placement of the film in those storylines was thrilling to me.

I was satisfied with Iron Man earlier this summer as my superhero jones fulfillment, and was looking forward to Hellboy II: The Golden Army, but The Dark Knight is a testament to how good a superhero film can be, and in my opinion stands in and above some of the pantheon of the best superhero films made to date.

Posted by JonnJonzz | July 21, 2008 9:40 AM

My God. Ledger gives a truly great performance and you carry on about how this is made possible by all these factors external to the actor himself. Ledger, and Nolan, has given us the first Joker that is actually believeable. He sells the Joker. He is evil in an unsympathetic way. Yet we can still see the underlying anguish in the character without letting that blind us to his evil. This is a rare and fine performance, rarely matched. Perhaps Daniel Day Lewis's performnace in "There Will be Blood" achieves something of similar effect.

Posted by Cap and Gown | July 21, 2008 9:43 AM

"And I can't wait for the "CAP is a front for GM" rant that you're working on."

GM? What does GM have to do with it? I honestly have no idea if you're talking about cars or bio-engineering.

-----

About six months ago, Matthew stopped aspiring to intellectual honesty and started writing straight-up propaganda. I actually think someplace like CAP is the correct location for him to be. They're hiring him for propaganda, not honesty.

Now, there is only the problem of why CAP is hiring an anti-progressive bash-the-poor scumbag like Matthew to write for them, but that's CAP's problem, not Matthew's problem.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 9:47 AM

Saw the movie, and I just sort of assumed until reading reviews afterwards that Batman in costume was using some sort of a voice distorter.

Posted by John Bragg | July 21, 2008 10:00 AM

Complaining about Batman speaking in a hoarse, growling voice? Isn't that like seeing a Jane Austen adaptation and complaining about how everyone has a British accent?

Posted by lamenter | July 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Complaining about Batman speaking in a hoarse, growling voice? Isn't that like seeing a Jane Austen adaptation and complaining about how everyone has a British accent?

Posted by lamenter | July 21, 2008 10:03 AM

"Kevin Conroy, who did the voice for Bruce Timm's animated series version of Batman, really nailed it."

Unlike Conroy's version, the problem is Bale's scary Batman voice is that it just sound ridiculous. Every time he opens his mouth I expect another character to say "Oh, come on!"

Other than that, though, TDK is pretty much the most ambitious super-hero film ever made. It was certainly trying to tell a deeper story than the also excellent IRON MAN, but IM gets some points for remembering that super-heroes are fantasy characters created for children and should be fun.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 10:18 AM

I always saw Bruce Wayne as three people. Batman, vengeful and frightening.

The private Bruce Wayne, comfortable in his own skin. Cold, calculating. The Detective.

The public Bruce Wayne. His public image varies, but is generally an image and a character that the private Bruce Wayne hates. He's always very uncomfortable.

Haven't seen the Dark Knight yet, but based on Batman Begins, I thought that Bale got it. That there were 3 distinct personalities that he had to build.

Bale is a fine choice to play Batman. He was the best Batman yet in Begins, beating out Michael Keaton for that honor (though, Keaton did do a good job with the brood - good furrowed brow on that guy).

He may be overshadowed by the Joker, but a good bad guy always outshines the good guy.

Posted by jerry 101 | July 21, 2008 10:25 AM

I thought Bale was fine and Ledger was excellent, but where is all of this praise for Aaron Eckhardt coming from? Some of the problem was with the dialogue he was given and the over-the-top-even-by-comic-book-standards horror make-up, which he obviously couldn't controle, but I thought he was by far the weakest of the major players.

I was really pleased to see the inclusion of the Joker's variant on the Prisoners' Dilemma, though its resolution was a bit optimistic for my tastes. I had been hoping the detonators actually controlled each boat's own bomb rather than the other's, and that the civilians would then destroy themselves. I guess that would've been a pretty dark ending to an already-dark film, though.

Posted by Midwest Product | July 21, 2008 10:39 AM

Complaining about Batman speaking in a hoarse, growling voice? Isn't that like seeing a Jane Austen adaptation and complaining about how everyone has a British accent?

By day, he's the proud, aristocratic FitzWilliam Darcy, gentleman of lesiure. By night, he rides out on his coal-black stallion from a cave under Pemberley, as The Black Cravat, a masked avenger, trained by the now-retired Scarlet Pimpernel, fighting injustice in Regency England. But can he continue his fight without losing the heart of Miss Elizabeth Bennett? Coming soon to a theater near you -- Pride and Punishment, starring Hugh jackman, Angelina Jolie, and Sir Anthony Hopkins as Percy Blakeney.

Posted by CJColucci | July 21, 2008 10:46 AM

This issue with Batman's voice isn't Christian Bale's fault. It was clearly manipulated in post-production, reflecting the choices of Nolan and his team.

Who's Two Face?

You're out of your element, Donny.

Posted by Philly | July 21, 2008 10:49 AM

Just to clarify, what's wrong with Bale's BatVoice isn't that it's deep, growling, or menacing.

It's that it sounds metallic, processed, forced, and jarringly fake. Bad call by the sound editor.

Posted by Philly | July 21, 2008 10:53 AM

super-heroes are fantasy characters created for children and should be fun.

True. On the other hand, the earliest incarnation of Batman was violent and pulpy and presented a hero who killed people with some regularity and frequently did things like knock some dude into vat of acid and gloat about how it's what he deserved. It was really, really violent kids' stuff (that got brightened up a lot very early in the character's history).

There is no unitary and true Batman characterization; he, and his stories, have had at least five different and distinct presentations over the past 69 years. That we don't like one or the other doesn't mean that there was a failure to portray the true essence of the character.

Posted by Medrawt | July 21, 2008 10:56 AM

Unlike Conroy's version, the problem is Bale's scary Batman voice is that it just sound ridiculous. Every time he opens his mouth I expect another character to say "Oh, come on!"

I thought the voice worked well in Batman Begins during Flass's...interrogation. "Swear to ME!" and "Do I look like a cop?"

Not as well in TDK. But part of the point of TDK was that Batman just isn't all that scary a persona once you know that he has limits.

Posted by Royko | July 21, 2008 11:00 AM

"It's that it sounds metallic, processed, forced, and jarringly fake. Bad call by the sound editor."

Decisions like that are made far above the sound editor pay grade.

And worth noting that the things you didn't like about the voice are very intentional.

Newsflash! You're not supposed to like Batman. That's standard for the franchise. You're not supposed to find him very appealing, or even particularly human. The choices in Bale's performance are all part of that.

And Bale's casting is part of that as well. It's no coincidence that Bateman becomes Batman.

The lack of Batman's appeal is precisely what gives the franchise such memorable villains.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 11:05 AM

Kevin Conroy, who has done the voice of batman for decades in the cartoons, had it perfect. As Batman, deep and threatening but completely human-sounding. As Bruce wayne, masculine but airy.

Posted by artward | July 21, 2008 11:13 AM

Christian Bale is the best Batman because you can see the different versions of Bruce Wayne the billionaire, Bruce Wayne who wants and Batman! He shows the side that we average 9-5 workers could show when we see bad things happening.

Posted by Guadalupe Rivera | July 21, 2008 11:16 AM

Salon article on incarnations of Batman.

Posted by croatoan | July 21, 2008 11:22 AM

I don't think Bale's performance was bad, just that he got overshadowed by Ledger. Michael Keaton called Jack Nicholson's Joker "a creepy uncle." Ledger's Joker was an insane, charismatic sadist with a bit of a serial killer streak that was among one of the best villain performances I've seen in any type of movie. He was able to be humorous and menacing at the same time. All around me, people were nervously laughing at his antics and dark, sadistic humor while he did horrible things and then people seemed to feel guilty about laughing, which seems to me means that Ledger captured the Joker just about perfectly.

Posted by Reality Man | July 21, 2008 11:22 AM

In general, I agree with Matt; the Joker is by far the best role in the movie. It's the plum part in the whole Batman universe, just as Iago is the best "actor's role" in Othello, even though the play isn't named after him. Indeed, I left the movie reflecting on just that comparison.

On the other hand, part of the deal here is that you have to be a great actor to make the promise of such a role pay off, and I think Ledger was, and did. A big part of the reason we notice his skill is due to factors outside Ledger himself, but that doesn't take away from his accomplishment.

Posted by FearItself | July 21, 2008 11:32 AM

Decisions like that are made far above the sound editor pay grade.

Yes, Peter, I'm aware of that, which is why, in the post immediately before that, I referred to "Nolan and his team." The "call" I am referring to is the decision to do such a shitty job processing Bale's lines.

And as for your insane point that "You're not supposed to like Batman," I really have not response to that--as if the most hated troll in this corner of Left Blogistan and teh biggest Edwards fanboy in teh internets has any sense of what makes people likable.

Posted by Philly | July 21, 2008 11:33 AM

As long as we're talking about the performances of actors as Batman, I'd like to give a shout out to Adam West.

That's right -- Adam West!

Anyone can make believable dialogue sound believable. But it's much harder to make ridiculous dialogue sound believable. Okay, so Adam West never made me believe the ridiculous dialogue he had to deliver. But you know what? He made me believe that he believed it. That's a neat trick to pull off.

Posted by Roddy McCorley | July 21, 2008 11:35 AM

Haven't seent his one yet, but I disliked Bale's "public" Bruce Wayne persona in Batman Begins for the very fact that it was a retread of his character from American Psycho. Bruce, even the fake, public Bruce, isn't someone whose shit-eating grin you want to smack off. I've always thought of him as someone people generally enjoy spending time with because he oozes charm -- if Batman thinks it's worthwhile to know how to work a room, he's going to be great at it, just like he's great at swinging from rooftops and frightening mopes.

Posted by Cliffy | July 21, 2008 11:37 AM

On the other hand, the earliest incarnation of Batman was violent and pulpy and presented a hero who killed people with some regularity and frequently did things like knock some dude into vat of acid and gloat about how it's what he deserved. It was really, really violent kids' stuff (that got brightened up a lot very early in the character's history).

Dark and violent does not mean that it isn't kid's stuff. Have you ever read the original Grimm's Fairy Tales? That is some dark, violent and twisted stuff; the intended audience was also children. Despite the sheltering that we give kids these days, kids can understand dark material and be perfectly fine.

Posted by Mo | July 21, 2008 11:45 AM

Well I did not see the movie yet, however, I heard it was very good. I will see it soon. As for the persona "Batman" and "Bruce Wayne" I have to say that no Actor will be able to portray those personas to the tee. Bale, he came very close. I did enjoy Batman: Begins. Keaton was one hell of a Batman, but I will have to say that Jack Nicholson is the Joker of all Joker's! However, I may change my opinion after I see the movie. There is my 2cents.. :)

Posted by Jim Jernigan | July 21, 2008 11:46 AM

"And as for your insane point that "You're not supposed to like Batman," I really have not response to that"

You're not alone. Unappealing movie protagonists confuse most folks when they try to discuss.

But since Tim Burton shifted around the mechanics of the franchise twenty years ago, it's really been marked by the basic unlikability and impenetrability of the Batman character. It's why the franchise has generally been centered around the more charismatic villain characters. We don't particularly care for or about Batman. He's too constricted.

This confuses you and (the generally stupid) David Denby, who find Bale's vocal performance unappealing, and thus conclude that it's a bad artistic decision, not understanding that it's a decision made wisely with an eye to the mechanics that make the Batman movies work.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 11:58 AM

Chritsian Bale is beside the point and totally irrelevant to the larger problem.

Batman is a steaming pile of excrement. Batman, Spiderman and all the other superhero movies are dumbing down our culture to death by turning peoples' brains into mush.

We need more movies like Atonement, The Hours, About Schmidt, The Pianist, Safe, There Will Be Blood, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Squid and the Whale, The World According to Garp, Wall Street, Shortcuts, The Godfather, Goodfellas, Citizen Kane, All About Eve, From Here to Eternity, Chinatown, Nashville, Annie Hall, Manhattan, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Graduate, The Last Detail, The Conversation, Mean Streets, All the President's Men, and Network.

Frank Miller is an atrocious, horrible, wretched writer. Instead of Miller, filmmakers should draw inspiration from writers like William Faulkner, Sinclair Lewis, Thomas Wolfe, John Dos Pasos, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, E.M. Foster, Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, Margaret Atwood, Willa Cather, Flannery O'Connor, Joyce Carol Oates, Carson McCullers, Henry James, William Dean Howells, John Updike, Saul Bellow, Walker Percy, William Gaddis, Thomas Pynchon, Philip Roth, Don Delillo, William T. Vollman, Richard Powers, and Kurt Vonnegut.

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 12:12 PM

"That we don't like one or the other doesn't mean that there was a failure to portray the true essence of the character."

That's certainly true, and TDK addressed the broader social and cultural essence of Batman better than any previous film and better than most comics.

But to me, there's something not right about taking the super-hero so seriously, especially when you're talking about an established character like Batman. That's because the more seriously you take it, the more realism you impose on it, the more the concept tears itself apart. Which is okay if that sort of deconstruction is acknowledged and dealt with within the story (like WATCHMEN), but it often isn't.

I think Nolan is grappling with that sort of deconstruction, as a theme of TDK seems to be that Batman can't work in the real world without radically altering that world's ideas of normality. The end of TDK seems to suggest that a world where Batman is tolerated as an unofficial vigilante is a flawed, unhealthy, adolescent society. That a mature, responsible, adult world isn't just a place where Batman isn't needed, but a place where Batman can't be allowed to exist. I'll be very interested to see what Nolan has planned for the conclusion of his trilogy, though who knows what Ledger's tragic death will mean for what it might have been.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 12:13 PM

The Batman voice fits into Nolan's conceptualizing of Batman as a 21st-century crime-fighter who uses all cutting-edge technology available to him. Clearly, Batman has a voice distorter fitted into the neck of his suit -- Wayne can speak naturally and his voice is automatically disguised. Why would Wayne bother to come up with two separate voices (and risk a slip) when he can just use technology to create a Batman voice?

Posted by Duh | July 21, 2008 12:16 PM

"But since Tim Burton shifted around the mechanics of the franchise twenty years ago, it's really been marked by the basic unlikability and impenetrability of the Batman character."

Only in your fevered dreams. Granted, Kilmer and Clooney had little to work with, but both Keaton and Bale did very good jobs (given their respective circumstances) of bringing the audience inside Batman and making you like both sides of his alter ego.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 12:27 PM

Let's be frank: in many ways, Ledger's Joker is what allows the movie to be more than 2 hours long without overstaying its welcome (until, of course, the remarkably more predictable final act). He's so unpredictable, such an agent of chaos that it really creates a sense that almost anything can happen, that the whole movie is truly off-kilter and dangerous. It creates the sort of suspense that even most so-called thrillers can't muster. And the way that the movie always cuts to many of his scenes with no music but an anxious high hum was a masterful touch.

::::SPOILERS below:::::

I think it's unfortunate that the Joker lives at the end, and Two Face does not. Obviously it would have been better seeing as Ledger cannot reprise the role. But also thematically: this Joker is pretty clearly on a mission to destroy everything, including himself, and leave something even worse in his wake, all to demonstrate that Batman cannot stop him no matter what. It also would have avoided the far less plausible ending with Two-Face that outstayed its welcome, and also made sort of ridiculous Batman's refusal to let the Joker die.

On the downside, I thought the "dark knight" plot tying up the way it did was where the whole film was heading, and that ending wouldn't have been possible if things hadn't ended up the way they did.

Posted by Bad | July 21, 2008 12:29 PM

"Granted, Kilmer and Clooney had little to work with, but both Keaton and Bale did very good jobs (given their respective circumstances) of bringing the audience inside Batman "

Again, unappealing movie protagonists confuse the hell out of most folks when they try to discuss.

My saying that the franchise since Tim Burton has been marked by the basic unlikability and impenetrability of the Batman character is not a knock on the acting abilities of the guys who played Batman.

The unlikability and impenetrability of the character is by design.

Years from now folks will remember Ledger's perfomance, not Bale's, just as folks now remember Nicholson's performance, not Keaton's. This, again, is by design.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 12:39 PM

Still not the the Batman of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.
Old, beat up and near suicidal.

Posted by judson | July 21, 2008 12:40 PM

"The unlikability and impenetrability of the character is by design.

Years from now folks will remember Ledger's perfomance, not Bale's, just as folks now remember Nicholson's performance, not Keaton's. This, again, is by design."

Uh, no. It's because one role is flashier than the other. More folks remember Hopkins performance from Silence of the Lambs than Foster's, but it's surely not because Clarice Starling was unlikable or impenetrable or because Hannibal Lecter was likable or penetrable.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 12:51 PM

MBunge -

I haven't seen this movie yet, but Batman Begins is my favorite of the crop of comic-book superhero movies from the past eight years or so. (And my favorite Batman movie; and Batman is my favorite comics character.) Iron Man is a close second.

I think there are two essential problems in general with this sort of thing.

The first is that you simply can't transfer everything about the comic to film and expect it to work. For one thing, the dramatic conceits of film demand some sort of resolution that an individual comic, even an individual arc, denies you; leaving aside the Nolan films, the villains of the Burton and Schumacher movies are defeated with obvious finality and aren't coming back. The whole visual aesthetic also doesn't translate. Michael Chabon has a nice essay on this, but: tights don't work on real people. They don't look the way they look in comics. The most realistic evocation of a classic superhero uniform I've ever seen was a Playboy cover from a few years ago where the model was presented as Wonder Woman; she wasn't wearing spandex, the costume had literally been painted on to her. That's what it took to make it look like the comic book. Yglesias mentioned this back when Iron Man came out: the movie didn't need to do any legwork to deal with a ridiculous outfit, since Iron Man doesn't have one. The armor suit translates perfectly well, whereas the implication of spandex invites silliness. When people complain about Batman wearing body armor I want to show them a picture of Adam West in costume; good or bad, that show was campy and they knew it was campy while they made it, which isn't the aesthetic people have gone for since.

Second, I do think many people working in comics proper and working in the adaptation of comics to film make an error by conflating "taking it seriously" to mean making it "real" by OUR terms in the real world (where "real" invariably means "dull" and/or "faux-gritty"), and "taking it seriously" by which I mean taking the fictional world on its own terms. I find the former pretty dreary and stupid, but I find the latter invigorating (though people certainly disagree with me). One of the reasons I loved Iron Man was because it was a fun movie while taking its own premises entirely seriously, in a way that, say, the classic Superman with Christopher Reeve doesn't.

Posted by Medrawt | July 21, 2008 12:52 PM

Seth,

Half those movies you name are less rich and full and intellectually complex than The Dark Knight. There are far more dumbed down, Manichean stories on your list than many of the better superhero movies. In fact, my major complaint about this movie is the fact that a lot of stuff was said by characters when Nolan had done such a wonderful job showing it. Daniel Day Lewis in TWBB were orders of magnitude more cartoony and one dimensional than the Joker or Dent.

Posted by Mo | July 21, 2008 1:11 PM

"Uh, no. It's because one role is flashier than the other. More folks remember Hopkins performance from Silence of the Lambs than Foster's, but it's surely not because Clarice Starling was unlikable or impenetrable or because Hannibal Lecter was likable or penetrable."

Well, actually Clarice Starling was reasonably impenetrable, which is what her character arc was basically about.

And Hannibal Lecter was basically likable and penetrable, which is why his ultimate escape was a happy ending, and is also why he wasn't the person Clarice was after.

But the core Batman formula is like Silence of the Lambs on steroids. Batman is unlikable and impenetrable without the elements that served to give the audience access to Clarice Starling's interior life. And the flashy role is given to the villain, not the helper character that Lecter was.

The Batman character is all about constriction, without the roguish elements that are usually employed to make action/comic heroes more palatable and accessible. Again, it's why the Batman villains tend to more pre-eminent than is usual in action/comic movies.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 1:25 PM

"The armor suit translates perfectly well, whereas the implication of spandex invites silliness."

The tights worked fine for Superman and Spider-Man. The FF ran around in form fitting bodysuits and no one made a big deal out of it (granted, they may have been distracted by everything else wrong with those two films). No one seemed to complain about the outfit in DAREDEVIL and there wasn't any body armor to be found.

Part of the problem, I think, is the reliance on the head piece to carry off the Bat-motiff. Without the black-on-yellow chest emblem (which I know some folks don't like but is a billion times better visually than everything else they've tried, especially in the real world), the ears are the only element of the costume at rest that suggest "I'm a bat". That means a helmet and make-up around the eyes to disguise how thick it is, and the helment then fits with an armored suit.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 1:28 PM

Tastes vary, obviously. I had no problem with Spidey's tights, but I think they don't really work on Christopher Reeve or whomever the new guy was. (The latter being based only on publicity photos; I haven't seen the movie.) Why one works for me and the other doesn't I haven't thought about.

Posted by Medrawt | July 21, 2008 1:36 PM

The best description of David Denby I've ever read is that he's a middlebrow who thinks he's a highbrow.

Denby may well be right about Bale in this particular role, but to say "Christian Bale has been effective in some films" is to damn with faint praise, and it reveals what a lousy observer of acting Denby is. Contra Denby, Bale is usually superb, not merely "effective sometimes," and he has an extraordinarily wide range - which isn't true of all great actors. Many actors, even some of the best, are limited in what sorts of characters they are convincing as. That's why Katharine Hepburn's or Jack Nicholson's vocal mannerisms and line readings are so easy to identify & to parody, because they don't vary from role to role, but mostly stay constant.

But Bale is a chameleon-like performer who disappears into his roles: it's hard to believe the cheerful, affable boy-next-door in Little Women is also the bloodthirsty yuppie killer in American Psycho, is also the severely mentally handicapped youth in The Secret Agent, is also eccentric war survivor Dieter Dengler in Rescue Dawn, is also larger-than-life superhero Bruce Wayne. Each of these performances is utterly distinct: a new speech pattern, new set of mannerisms, a fresh set of behaviors and demeanor each time out. While Denby is probably correct that this isn't Bale's finest hour, & that the movie's being taken too seriously, it speaks poorly of Denby's observational capacities that he is oblivious to Bale's vast range, which is comparable to Meryl Streep's (without Streep's sometimes excessive theatricality), but instead finds him merely "effective" in the odd role here and there. There speaks a middlebrow who knows nothing about screen acting.

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 3:09 PM

"The best description of David Denby I've ever read is that he's a middlebrow who thinks he's a highbrow."

Exactamundo.

"Contra Denby, Bale is usually superb, not merely "effective sometimes"

Yup. His roles are usually worth seeking out.

"and he has an extraordinarily wide range"

Here is where you lose me.

I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range. His role in American Psycho is his ur-role. He can't effectively vary very much from that. If you can't be hip to be square, you shouldn't be Christian Bale. That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't.

And you leave off The Machinist, which I think may be his most impressive performance...

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 3:53 PM

We need more movies like ... The Hours

This gives away what's an otherwise wry parody post. Seth, try to be more subtle next time.

Posted by Leee | July 21, 2008 4:14 PM

"I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range. That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't."

I'm afraid I disagree. He is at least as versatile as Streep. If he hasn't been properly recognized as such, it's because he is so understated in certain roles he didn't get the praise he deserved. Again, what was lacking from his boy-next-door performance in Little Women? Nothing. It was perfectly embodied. Why didn't he get much acclaim for it? Precisely because of the ordinariness of the part: the boy-next-door. And yet, his rejected marriage proposal to Winona Ryder is perfectly enacted (including by Ryder, who is often flat). It's a very ordinary experience - romantic rejection - but he got at feelings & intensities that most actors miss. As good & watchable as they can be, I doubt Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, or Jude Law, other stars of his generation, could have gotten more emotion & more truth out of that scene, which could have been, in the wrong hands, completely lacking in impact altogether.

Because being turned down by a girl you love isn't an extraordinary situation like a "sophie's choice," but a pretty commonplace occurence, it's harder to recognize what makes it so dramatic. But Bale (and Ryder, never better) make the scene play out as intensely dramatic. In fact, it may be one of the most perfectly acted "rejection/heartbreak" scenes ever caught on film.

See for yourself: notice how completely different is the personality he creates for the character. There's not a trace of his Bruce Wayne/Patrick Bateman facade. And notice how much emotion he gets into a pretty sugary, mild, G-rated family film that doesn't have drama otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGgDtasH2b8

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 5:10 PM

"I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range. That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't."

I'm afraid I disagree. He is at least as versatile as Streep. If he hasn't been properly recognized as such, it's because he is so understated in certain roles he didn't get the praise he deserved. Again, what was lacking from his boy-next-door performance in Little Women? Nothing. It was perfectly embodied. Why didn't he get much acclaim for it? Precisely because of the ordinariness of the part: the boy-next-door. And yet, his rejected marriage proposal to Winona Ryder is perfectly enacted (including by Ryder, who is often flat). It's a very ordinary experience - romantic rejection - but he got at feelings & intensities that most actors miss. As good & watchable as they can be, I doubt Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, or Jude Law, other stars of his generation, could have gotten more emotion & more truth out of that scene, which could have been, in the wrong hands, completely lacking in impact altogether.

Because being turned down by a girl you love isn't an extraordinary situation like a "sophie's choice," but a pretty commonplace occurence, it's harder to recognize what makes it so dramatic. But Bale (and Ryder, never better) make the scene play out as intensely dramatic. In fact, it may be one of the most perfectly acted "rejection/heartbreak" scenes ever caught on film.

See for yourself: notice how completely different is the personality he creates for the character. There's not a trace of his Bruce Wayne/Patrick Bateman facade. And notice how much emotion he gets into a pretty sugary, mild, G-rated family film that doesn't have drama otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGgDtasH2b8

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 5:17 PM

"I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range... That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't."

Oh, I think he's at least as versatile as Streep. If he hasn't been properly recognized as such, it's because he's so understated in certain roles he didn't get the praise he deserved. Again, what was lacking from his boy-next-door performance in Little Women? Nothing. It was perfectly embodied. Why didn't he get much acclaim for it? Precisely because of the "average joe"-ness of the guy. And yet, his rejected marriage proposal to Winona Ryder is perfectly enacted (including by Ryder, who is often flat). It's a very ordinary experience - romantic rejection - but he got at feelings & intensities that most actors miss. As good & watchable as they can be, I doubt Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, or Jude Law, other stars of his generation, could have gotten more emotion & more truth out of that scene, which could have been, in the wrong hands, completely lacking in impact altogether.

Because being turned down by a girl you love isn't an extraordinary situation like a "sophie's choice," but a pretty commonplace occurence, it's harder to recognize what makes it so dramatic. But Bale (and Ryder, never better) make the scene play out as intensely dramatic. In fact, it may be one of the most perfectly acted "rejection/heartbreak" scenes ever caught on film.

See for yourself: notice how completely different is the personality he creates for the character. There's not a trace of his Bruce Wayne/Patrick Bateman facade. And notice how much emotion he gets into a pretty sugary, mild, G-rated family film that doesn't have drama otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGgDtasH2b8

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 5:20 PM

"I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range... That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't."

Oh, I think he's at least as versatile as Streep. If he hasn't been properly recognized as such, it's because he's so understated in certain roles he didn't get the praise he deserved. Again, what was lacking from his boy-next-door performance in Little Women? Nothing. It was perfectly embodied. Why didn't he get much acclaim for it? Precisely because of the "average joe"-ness of the guy. And yet, his rejected marriage proposal to Winona Ryder is perfectly enacted (including by Ryder, who is often flat). It's a very ordinary experience - romantic rejection - but he got at feelings & intensities that most actors miss. As good & watchable as they can be, I doubt Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, or Jude Law, other stars of his generation, could have gotten more emotion & more truth out of that scene, which could have been, in the wrong hands, completely lacking in impact altogether.

Because being turned down by a girl you love isn't an extraordinary situation like a "sophie's choice," but a pretty commonplace occurence, it's harder to recognize what makes it so dramatic. But Bale (and Ryder, never better) make the scene play out as intensely dramatic. In fact, it may be one of the most perfectly acted "rejection/heartbreak" scenes ever caught on film.

Little Women scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGgDtasH2b8

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 5:22 PM

All other criticism of the Dark Knight aside, take ANY other actor and throw them into the POP ICON Joker role...

No -

The role is not the credit.

To credit the character of the Joker himself is to take a cheap stab at Heath Ledger's brilliance.

No other actor on earth could have delivered the Joker as Ledger did.

End of discussion.

Posted by Kman-217 | July 21, 2008 5:30 PM

seth, are you 100 years old? that sounds like grunpy old man talk, there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff that's just fun! because it's an escape from reality,a big reason why people actually go to the movies! so put your intellectual snobbery aside, you misanthrope! superhero movies always have a point and a social message, if u don't like it, stay home and save 10 bucks!

Posted by gina marie | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM

seth, are you 100 years old? that sounds like grunpy old man talk, there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff that's just fun! because it's an escape from reality,a big reason why people actually go to the movies! so put your intellectual snobbery aside, you misanthrope! superhero movies always have a point and a social message, if u don't like it, stay home and save 10 bucks!

Posted by gina marie | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM

seth, are you 100 years old? that sounds like grunpy old man talk, there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff that's just fun! because it's an escape from reality,a big reason why people actually go to the movies! so put your intellectual snobbery aside, you misanthrope! superhero movies always have a point and a social message, if u don't like it, stay home and save 10 bucks!

Posted by gina marie | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM

seth, are you 100 years old? that sounds like grunpy old man talk, there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff that's just fun! because it's an escape from reality,a big reason why people actually go to the movies! so put your intellectual snobbery aside, you misanthrope! superhero movies always have a point and a social message, if u don't like it, stay home and save 10 bucks!

Posted by gina marie | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM

All other criticism of the Dark Knight aside, take ANY other actor and throw them into the POP ICON Joker role...

No -

The role is not the credit.

To credit the character of the Joker himself is to take a cheap stab at Heath Ledger's brilliance.

No other actor on earth could have delivered the Joker as Ledger did.

End of discussion.

Posted by Kman-217 | July 21, 2008 5:35 PM

HW,

The line between perfect sincerity and perfect irony can be difficult to discern at times, and your postings here are one of those times.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 5:39 PM

I think, along the lines of Petey's take, the casting of Bale as John Connor in Terminator 4 is probably brilliant.

Posted by southpaw | July 21, 2008 5:43 PM

"The other thing I wanted to say was that while the praise Ledger has gotten is very much deserved, I'd appreciate some more acknowledgment that one reason he's able to do such an extraordinary job is that the Joker is one of the great pop characters."

This is a good point, but one wonders if it is a bit too obvious.
And, besides, we should also remember that up until now most people would regard Jack Nicholson's Joker as the definitive characterization, and that was something Ledger had to overcome. He did so, creating the best Joker to date and with a weaker script than Nicholson had. That is nothing short of amazing.

Posted by Jack | July 21, 2008 6:08 PM

I liked Batman Begins better. It gave more time to the Bruce Wayne character. I thought it gave short shrift to him this time, and I wanted to see more of Bale without the batsuit.

But he is a great actor, as is Gary Oldman. I think it's easier to act with weird makeup, and that's why Ledger let it rip.

But I will see anything with Christian Bale in it.

Posted by Victoria | July 21, 2008 6:17 PM

"I think, along the lines of Petey's take, the casting of Bale as John Connor in Terminator 4 is probably brilliant."

Agreed. It's well within his sweet spot.

I've got a bad feeling about what McG will bring to the project, however...

Come home Jim Cameron! Entourage cameos and 3-D are not what you were born for!

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 6:17 PM

Damn. I got a "failure" message even though, evidently, my posts did go through, and it looks like "Gina Marie" had the same thing happen to her. can anyone hit a delete button?

"Chritsian Bale is beside the point and totally irrelevant to the larger problem."

There is a larger problem, true enough, but that isn't what this blog entry is about. Even with a popcorn movie you can discuss acting quality. & David Denby is hardly the person to solve the problem of high art being squeezed out of the marketplace, since he wouldn't recognize it even if he saw it.

"there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff"

Atonement probably isnt even a good example of "high art". it's Masterpiece Theater released in theaters. Seth mixes together genuine masterpieces in his lists with Miramax faux-"masterpieces" calculated to win Oscars, designed to make audiences think "prestigious" without truly being much more sophisticated than a superhero movie. (His literature list is more impressive.)

"The line between perfect sincerity and perfect irony can be difficult to discern at times, and your postings here are one of those times."

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. If you're laughing at my claim Bale is a greater talent than Streep, all I can say is: fashions change in the appreciation of acting (like any other art - just look at how shifting, fluid literary "canons" are), and the day will come when he is widely seen as his generation's most versatile star (as he already is by some critics - not including Denby obviously). Citizen Kane didn't top critics' polls till a couple decades after it came out, then it's topped them ever since. In the early days, Streep had many detractors (Sarris, Kael included) who thought she was all flash, no substance (& they both cried "overrated" over Sophie's Choice). The "most versatile actress" mantle consolidated over time, not overnight. Fashions change.

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 6:24 PM

Gina Marie,
You need to get out a little more and set your sights a little bit higher. I know tripe when I see it, and Dark Knight is pure, unadulterated, grade A tripe. My observation that Dark Knight is a steaming pile of excrement does not make me a misanthrope.

Gina Marie, it wouldn't kill you to expand your horizons.

Yglesias should have titled this blog entry "In Defense of Tripe."

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 7:35 PM

Seth: it might help us think you were anything but a troll if you actually tried to argue a position rather than just declaring The Dark Knight to be tripe and then expecting that to win us over.

In other words, please explain *why* it's tripe and why The Hours isn't tripe.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 21, 2008 8:30 PM

Denby's review was ludicrous.

Maybe not as ludicrous as Seth-the-troll there, but nonetheless.

(Atonement? Seriously? You really should have worked harder there.)

Posted by Demosthenes | July 21, 2008 9:41 PM

I thought the movie was unbelievable, best superhero movie to date. Heath was outstanding. And deserves to get praised for it. Bale on the other hand, did amazing as well, and the reasoning behind his hoarse voice, was only because he had to hide his "Bruce Wayne" voice. Not only did he play Bruce Wayne, he played Bruce Wayne being Batman. No one never said anything about his voice in Batman Begins, the reason why people are talking about now, is because this movie is huge. I think Ledger and Bale deserve Oscars.

Job well done.

Posted by Ryann | July 21, 2008 9:45 PM

Adam:

For starters, the screenplay of Dark Knight is breathtakingly abyssmal. I found it tedious, uninspiring, and unengaging. Heath Ledger's performance was good, but has been grossly over praised by critics and the public because of his untimely death. All the chatter about him being nominated for an Oscar is sheer nonsense. If he is nominated, he'll win because of a sympathy vote and that would be a travesty. The performances of the other cast members are uniformly bad. Bale, Gyllenhaal, etc just seemed to be going through the motions.

I found nothing compelling, thought provoking, or stimulating about Dark Knight. I wish people would try to set their sights higher.

The Hours offered deeply moving portraits of people navigating their way through despair. It skillfully weaved together three different narratives. The performances by Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Julianne Moore were stunning and will stay with me for the rest of my life. I actually cared about what happened to these characters. The Hours also has many memorable supporting performances.

You can have your Dark Knight. I'll take The Hours over it any day of the week.

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 10:07 PM

Is anybody else as double over by Seth's intellect as I am? Seriously. I mean, the Graduate. He is a man of exceptional erudition and character.

Posted by Lamenter | July 21, 2008 10:22 PM

Demosthenes,

I'm calling it as I see it. Smearing someone who disagrees with you as a "troll" is the cheapest of cheap shots. If studio execs can't find any worthwhile original screenplays, they should at least use better source material than comic books. How many Batman movies does Hollywood need to inflict upon the public?

It's only July 21st and we've already had 3 incredibly overpriced, putrid stinkers: Dark Knight, Iron Man, and The Incredible Hulk.

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 10:30 PM

Lamenter,

What's your problem with The Graduate? Not enough explosions, not enough fight scenes?

Please enlighten me about the shortcomings of The Graduate. I await your insight.

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 10:38 PM

I agree. The Joker character is more interesting, as is Harvey Dent. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor. He's a chameleon and loses himself in each role. So it is to his credit that people find him boring as Bruce Wayne and his voice bizarre as Batman. I can't wait to see him in the Terminator films.

Posted by LB | July 21, 2008 10:38 PM

Um, where did I did I say anything derogatory about the Graduate?

Posted by Lamenter | July 21, 2008 10:45 PM

"The Hours offered deeply moving portraits of people navigating their way through despair. It skillfully weaved together three different narratives. The performances by Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Julianne Moore were stunning and will stay with me for the rest of my life."

This is a joke, right? The Hours? You can't be serious. Seth, your list of "Great Films" is Middlebrow Central. I agree with you about the overhyping of summer blockbusters & you have some valid points, but your own list of "superior" movies just ain't. In fact, in some ways, it's worse, because I'd rather see a movie that is honestly lowbrow than a movie that is lowbrow but pretends to be highbrow.

Like a lot of people who are well read, you show yourself to be unable to translate your literary taste into taste in film. Your list of "cinematic masterpieces" is a joke. Sorry to burst your bubble.

"All the chatter about him being nominated for an Oscar is sheer nonsense. If he is nominated, he'll win because of a sympathy vote and that would be a travesty."

You mean like giving an actress an Oscar for wearing a fake nose, frizzy hair, & coming off a very public divorce from Tom Cruise? Face it, she wouldn't have won that Oscar except for a gimmick (The Nose) & loads of sympathy votes. Travesty indeed.

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 10:45 PM

I thought Danny Devito as The Penguin set the bar for Batman villain roles and has yet to be matched. Heath Ledger as the Joker and Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy were also pretty good.

Posted by blah | July 21, 2008 10:48 PM

"If studio execs can't find any worthwhile original screenplays, they should at least use better source material than comic books."

I read THE HOURS, the vastly overpraised Michael Cunningham novel, and it reads like a comic book version of a Virginia Woolf novel. In fact, there are graphic novels out there superior in sophistication to the soap opera mechanics & sentimental, self-pitying yuppie drivel of THE HOURS. The ideas running through THE HOURS aren't any more sophisticated than your average comic book's. The most laughable part of it is when Cunningham has his characters bitch and moan about "not being New York rich," even though they're "obscenely" rich by "world standards," Woe is Me! I'm not rich enough, wah wah wah! boo hoo! I'm not NEW YORK rich, so even though I'm really rich, I can't be happy till I'm NEW YORK RICH! He doesn't treat the thought ironically, but treats it with utter seriousness & gravity. What a joke. What pompous, award-grovelling, pseudo-art. Virginia Woolf must be rolling in her grave to have her name forever linked to this crap.

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 11:00 PM

I second Lamenter in his tony appraisal of the poster known as "Seth". Where would society be if not for those with the courage to post an extended list of classic films and books in a blog's comment section. How imbecilic we would all be if not for someone with the meddle to point out how greatly classics like About Schmidt have beneficently shaped the world in which we live. Where would we be without those who dare look down their noses at the rest of the world and say "NO! I really am superior! Seriously! I've seen All About Eve and really understood all the understated wit! Seriously!" Thank you dear "Seth". Thank you.

Posted by bedaded | July 21, 2008 11:19 PM

HW,

For starters, I have always believed that novels are a higher art form than movies and that the greatest novels are always superior to the greatest movies. Due to time constraints, I have not made it a goal to see every screen adaptation of every novelist I hold in high regard. This is why there is a divergence between my film list and my novelist list.

If you think The Godfather, Citize